City of Santa Barbara



City of Santa Barbara

Solid Waste Strategic Plan

Annual Progress Report

April 10, 2007

Introduction

This Solid Waste Strategic Plan Annual Progress Report is designed to provide an update on the progress of the City’s effort to maximize the solid waste diversion from landfills. On September 13, 2005, City Council approved the Solid Waste Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan). The Strategic Plan contains a number of projects, programs and system modifications designed to move the City toward its goals of maximizing diversion and to be the recycling leader of the State of California. Since the Strategic Plan was approved, progress continues on many of the Plan’s programs and projects, as described below. This second annual Progress Report contains a brief overview of regional cooperative efforts, highlights of seven programs in the Strategic Plan, and a table which contains descriptions, recent accomplishments and upcoming milestones for the programs and system modifications contained in the Plan (Table I beginning on page 5).

Regional Cooperation

Cooperation among the jurisdictions in Santa Barbara County and, in particular, the South Coast, is essential for efficient, cost-effective implementation of many solid waste diversion programs. The City participates in ongoing regional solid waste discussions, including the Multi-Jurisdictional Solid Waste Task Group (MJSWTG). The MJSWTG provides jurisdictions a forum to plan for long-term solid waste management strategies and facilities in Santa Barbara County. The effort most recently completed by the MJSWTG was a local Material Recovery Facility (MRF) feasibility study. The study, conducted by CalRecovery, Inc. on behalf of the cities of Goleta, Lompoc, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara and the county, compared four potential sites for a local MRF and considered varying levels of participation among jurisdictions. In December 2006, the MJSWTG approved the study, which indicated that a local MRF in most scenarios would improve the economics for all participating jurisdictions except the City of Santa Maria and the County, but also demonstrated that the current situation on the South Coast was economically comparable if all participants shared recyclable revenues. As a result of the local MRF analysis, South Coast jurisdictions’ staff (Cities of Santa Barbara and Goleta and County of Santa Barbara) are discussing appropriate ways to share recycling revenues received from the Gold Coast MRF. These staff also meet regularly to discuss and negotiate issues germane to the South Coast wasteshed including program fees, public outreach campaigns, revenue and cost sharing, and tipping fees at county facilities.

Progress on Solid Waste Programs

Table 1 (page 5) shows the progress and milestones of all elements of the Strategic Plan. The narrative below highlights six of the Strategic Plan elements in more detail. Table 2 (page 10) details progress made on numerous other high-priority solid waste management projects not contained in the Strategic Plan.

Diversion Rate / Annual Waste Generation

To cost-effectively manage diversion programs it is important to have accurate data on disposal and to be able to track the City’s diversion efforts over time. The CIWMB requires all California jurisdictions to establish a base year, or annual waste generation rate, indicating the total waste generated in a given year. Because the City’s waste stream has changed significantly and the previous waste generation rate did not reflect many of the current diversion programs and their effect on the City’s waste stream, revising the City’s base year on file with the CIWMB was included in the Solid Waste Strategic Plan.

On January 17, 2007 the CIWMB approved the City's new base year study which is based on diversion and disposal data from 2004. The study found that City's official diversion is rate 63%.  All of the recycling programs and projects that have been implemented over the past several years are now a part of the calculation that measures the City's total waste generation, disposal and diversion.  An important benefit of the revised diversion level is that staff will be able to better track ongoing recycling efforts, better evaluate which areas new programs may be helpful in increasing diversion, and provide more accurate assessments and updates on the City's progress in this area to the City Council, City staff, and the community.  Figure 1. City of Santa Barbara Diversion Rates shows the progress of City’s diversion rates since 1995, as certified by the CIWMB.

The portion of the waste generated by the community that the City has the most control over is that collected by the franchised haulers. Figure 2. City of Santa Barbara Franchise Trash and Recyclables shows a 12 month moving average for the total trash disposed by the City (based on Tajiguas Landfill records), trash collected and delivered to Tajiguas by the franchised haulers only, and recyclables collected and diverted by the franchised haulers only.

The trends in this chart indicate progress in the City’s recycling efforts. We believe that getting franchise recycling greater than franchise trash is an achievable goal in the near future. This by itself would get the City to 70% diversion.

Table 3 (page 13) provides a breakdown of the City’s waste generation, with the tonnages and percentages of each major category that comprise the City’s official diversion rate. The information in this table demonstrates that:

• Construction and Demolition (C&D) debris is by far the largest component (43%) of the City’s 63% diversion;

• Aside from C&D debris, smaller components combine to develop the diversion amount, and as an aggregate are very important contributors to landfill diversion;

• The total franchise-related recycling efforts comprise 9% of the City’s diversion – or 15% of the total diversion rate.

• The total diversion reported for 2004 is 172,027 tons which is 70,000 tons more than calculated in the City’s 1998 base year, as reported in the Solid Waste Strategic Plan.

Combining the trends shown in Figure 2 and the information in Table 3, the Solid Waste Strategic Plan contains programs that can increase the City’s diversion level above 70%. This can be achieved in the following ways:

• Maintain and possibly increase C&D diversion through an effective Unscheduled Collection Permit Ordinance and a C&D Recycling Ordinance. The Unscheduled Collection Permit Ordinance should also increase greenwaste diversion;

• Increase incentives for residential recycling through rate incentives;

• Increase commercial recycling with a Mandatory Recycling Ordinance;

• Increase greenwaste diversion with rate incentives and / or a greenwaste landfill ban; and

• Support all programs with effective public education, information, and outreach.

City Office Recycling Group / Zero Waste Events

Over 2,500 people have benefited from the City’s Zero Waste effort at city-sponsored events where food and/or beverages are served. Central Stores has been designated as the central point of distribution for all compostable materials for these events – obviating the need for trash containers. The single-largest zero waste event was the City employees’ picnic at Alameda Park – held in August 2006.

Rate Incentives

The City’s current billing system (Financial Management System, or FMS) provides an accurate mechanism for charging customers for trash, water and wastewater services. However, as currently programmed, FMS does not allow customers to evaluate, fully understand, nor optimize their trash and recycling service levels. In addition, the FMS does not currently provide information needed by staff to evaluate or modify collection services that the City’s haulers provide to the community.

In response to this and other needs to upgrade the utility billing system, the City’s Finance Department is leading an interdepartmental effort to replace the FMS with more current software. Staff expect the new billing system to be online beginning in December 2007 and the improved information to be printed on monthly bills beginning soon thereafter. In fiscal year 2008, the billing system improvements will be followed with an overhaul of the solid waste rate structure to improve the cost incentives for recycling and other reuse alternatives. An RFP is currently under development for the rate structure overhaul effort.

Unscheduled Collection Permit Ordinance

As contained in the Plan, an unscheduled collection permit would provide the ability to track the movement of materials, working as a complimentary mechanism to a C&D Recycling Ordinance. At an October 2006 Ordinance Committee meeting, staff received direction to include provisions requiring permittees to recycle into the ordinance. The revised Ordinance, which includes a recycling requirement, is scheduled to be heard at the Ordinance Committee on April 24, 2007. If approved by the Ordinance Committee, the ordinance would be shortly brought to City Council for consideration. The recycling requirement of the Ordinance would work in conjunction with the C&D Recycling Ordinance that is proposed in the Solid Waste Strategic Plan to enhance C&D recycling amounts.

School Recycling

Over the past year, staff assisted with the formation and regular meetings of the Santa Barbara School District Recycling Committee (Committee). Members include Lynn Rodriguez - School Board Member, Helene Schneider - City Councilmember, Michael Gonzalez - Director of Compliance with the District, as well as numerous principals, teachers, students, custodial staff, City staff, and other school site and other district staff. The Committee’s mandate is to implement and/or improve recycling at all District schools. City staff has been providing waste audits and containers to schools to satisfy their recycling needs and to develop an efficient and effective recycling infrastructure. Staff has also provided presentations to administrative staff at La Colina, Santa Barbara Junior High School and Harding Elementary School. Staff is also working with schools to develop in-classroom presentations on waste prevention and recycling - to be delivered to all students in the District.

Spirit of Service Awards

Looking Good Santa Barbara (LGSB) is a city-sponsored program established in 1989 that is dedicated to keeping Santa Barbara looking good by promoting recycling practices, eliminating visual pollution and enhancing our environment by educating Santa Barbara citizens. The program, funded by the solid waste fund and administered by Environmental Services, is an affiliate of Keep America Beautiful and Keep California Beautiful. LGSB’s third annual Spirit of Service Awards Program took place at Mulligan’s Café at the City’s Municipal Golf Course on March 1st. The Spirit of Service program was created to honor individuals and entities for their outstanding ongoing efforts to keep Santa Barbara looking good. The winners of 2007 include:

• Recycler of the Year Deckers Outdoor Corporation

• Outstanding Neighbor, Graffiti & Litter Abatement Travis Bower & Frank Wascoe

• Outstanding Public Employee, Graffiti & Litter Georgia Lopez

• Outstanding Public Employee, Recycling Myra Nicholas

• Outstanding Educator, Recycling Susan Davidson

• Outstanding Police Officer, Graffiti Abatement Officer John Williams

• Outstanding Media Coverage, Recycling Virginia Hayes

• Outstanding Business, Recycling Walter Claudio Salon & Lululemon Athletica

• Outstanding School Environmental Program Marymount of Santa Barbara

• Outstanding School Recycling Program Santa Barbara Junior High School

Conversion Technology

City and County staff have been working together to develop a conceptual process for evaluating and, ultimately, constructing and putting into operation a CT facility at Tajiguas. On February 27, 2007 Council approved the first step in the process, which is the development of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select an expert project manager/consultant (project manager) to coordinate the development of a subsequent RFP to evaluate and select a CT vendor and facility.

The MJSWTG’s conversion technology Subgroup has already spent a significant amount of time and effort to identify and evaluate CT facilities that would be capable of handling the municipal solid waste disposed on the South Coast. The effort resulted in a short list of seven vendors and, since that time, two vendors have withdrawn from the process. The cities of New York and Los Angeles have recently gone through an RFP process to evaluate and select a CT vendor and staff anticipates that their efforts will greatly assist in this effort. We expect the expert project manager to be selected and hired by summer 2007.

|Table 1. Solid Waste Strategic Plan |

|Current Status and Upcoming Milestones |

|4-10-07 |

| | | | | |

| |Project | |Upcoming |Anticipated |

|Title |Description |Current Status |Milestone(s) |Completion |

| |Requires project applicants to divert a minimum of 70% of |A model ordinance has been written according to the |C&D Recycling Ordinance has been on hold |December 2007 |

| |their project waste from the landfill; |original framework determined by the Multi-Jurisdictional |pending Council direction on Unscheduled | |

|Construction and |Over 140 jurisdictions in California have adopted similar |Solid Waste Task Group’s (MJSWTG) Conceptual Plan (Spring |Collection Permit Ordinance. Staff has | |

|Demolition (C&D) Recycling|C&D recycling ordinances. |2006); |received direction on making the two ordinances| |

|Ordinance  |Could deliver up to 15,000 or 7.5% additional diversion |A C&D Recycling Guideline has been updated and is |complimentary and will bring C&D Ordinance to | |

| |for the City. |available on internet to project applicants at: |Ordinance Committee upon completion of | |

| | | Collection Permit Ordinance. | |

| | |_Guide.pdf | | |

| |A local MRF may enhance diversion potential, afford the |CalRecovery, Inc. completed feasibility study for the |MRF project on hold | |

| |City greater control over its solid waste stream, |cities of Santa Barbara, Lompoc, Goleta, Santa Maria, and |Development of acceptable revenue-sharing |July 2007 |

|Local Material Recovery |incorporate economies of scale in building the region’s |the County of Santa Barbara (November 2006); |agreement between the City and County and | |

|Facility (MRF) |recycling infrastructure, and promote more equitable |Feasibility study presented to and approved by the MJSWTG |progress on CT. | |

| |revenue and cost sharing among jurisdictions; |(December 2006). | | |

| |Program instituted to improve the City’s office recycling |Zero waste events protocol is the standard for all |Worm bins to be installed at all fire stations.|April 2007 |

| |system and internal diversion rate; |city-sponsored events (Summer 2006); |Assist Purchasing Division with the development| |

|City Office Facilities |The City Office Recycling Group (CORG)’s motto is to ‘lead|Nearly 1,000 City staff have “taken the pledge” and |of Green Purchasing Policy. |Summer 2007 |

|Recycling |by example.’ |received a reusable mug (March 2007); | | |

| | |A foodscrap composting program installed at ten locations,| | |

| | |including three fire stations (November 2006); | | |

| | |Duplex has become the default for all city printers when | | |

| | |available (Spring 2006); | | |

| |A pilot program that collects foodscraps from large |Pilot program launched with Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital|Expand pilot program to include Santa Barbara |May 2007 |

| |institutions and restaurants. |(April 2007). |City College; | |

| |Material will be composted at existing composting facility| |Expansion of Zero Waste events protocol to |Summer 2007 |

|Foodscrap Recovery & |in northern Santa Barbara county. | |include Parks & Recreation facilities where | |

|Composting | | |non-city events are conducted’; | |

| | | |Expansion of Foodscrap pilot program to Santa | |

| | | |Barbara School District | |

| | | | |September 2007 |

| | | | | |

| |Project | |Upcoming |Anticipated |

|Title |Description / Overview |Status |Milestone(s) |Completion |

| |The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) |CIWMB approved the new base year study, making the City's | |Project Complete |

| |requires all jurisdictions to establish a base year, or |official diversion rate 63%.  With 2004 as the new | | |

| |annual waste generation rate; |baseline, all recycling programs that have been | | |

|Annual Waste |Base Year represents total waste generated by the City in |implemented over the past several years will be included | | |

|Generation Rate |a given year; |in the calculation that measures the City's total waste | | |

| |City’s waste stream has changed and the existing waste |generation (January 2007) | | |

| |generation rate does not reflect current diversion | | | |

| |programs and their effect on the City’s waste stream. | | | |

| |Modifies rate structure with financial incentives to |Service level data readied for fiscal analysis of |Complete service information printed on |December 2007 |

|Rate Incentives/ |recycle; |additional greenwaste (March 2007) |customer bills with new utility billing system;| |

|Additional |Provides additional greenwaste containers to residential |Recycling cart pricing optimized to incentive additional |Rate review to overhaul collection rates |December 2007 |

|Greenwaste* |customers. |recycling (April 2007) |maximizing financial incentives to recycle and | |

| | | |divert greenwaste | |

| |All recycling containers (cans, carts, and dumpsters) |All commercial recycling dumpsters in Zone 2 painted blue |Effective completion of uniform colors in both |June 2008 |

| |shall be blue; |(March 2007) |collection zones | |

|Uniform |All greenwaste containers green; |MarBorg replacing brown recycling carts and bins with blue| | |

|Container |All trash containers tan. |throughout Zone 2 (ongoing); | | |

|Colors | |BFI replacing existing recycling carts with blue in Zone 1| | |

| | |(ongoing) | | |

*Additional details of rate review and recycling incentives in Table 2 - High Priority Projects (page 11)

| | | | | |

| |Project | |Upcoming |Anticipated |

|Title |Description / Overview |Status |Milestone(s) |Completion |

| |Continuing effort to provide recycling in City parks, |Installed recycling containers as part of Milpas |Installation of 48 recycling containers at |April 2007 |

| |sidewalks and parking lots |Beautification Project (Fall 2006); |Shoreline Park; | |

| | |Installed 12 trash and recycling containers on 1300 block |Installing signage in City Parks to promote |Summer 2007 |

|Recycling in Public Spaces| |of State Street near Arlington Theater (January 2007). |recycling and reduce litter. | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| |Contributes to City’s recycling efforts by “closing the |Responsibility for development and implementation of Green|Environmental Services to provide technical |June 2008 |

|Green Purchasing Policy |loop” and using recycled products; |Purchasing Policy transferred to Purchasing Division (Fall|assistance on recycled-content purchases and | |

| |Identifies alternatives to toxic chemicals. |2005). |product list development | |

| |Requires recycling in commercial sector |Businesses continue to improve and/or voluntarily initiate|Outreach to business community on draft |Fall 2007 |

|Mandatory Commercial |Requires equal space for recyclables and refuse in all |recycling programs (ongoing); |ordinance | |

|Recycling |multi-unit residential and commercial facilities |According to the CIWMB, 20 California jurisdictions |Mandatory Commercial Recycling Ordinance to |February 2008 |

| | |currently have mandatory commercial recycling programs in |Ordinance Committee | |

| | |place. (ongoing). | | |

| | | | | |

| |Project | |Upcoming |Anticipated |

|Title |Description / Overview |Status |Milestone(s) |Completion |

| |Supports expansion of CIWMB-permitted capacity at MarBorg |Local Enforcement Agency and California Integrated Waste | |Project Complete |

| |C&D Recycling Facility |Management Board staff conducted public hearing on | | |

|C&D Recycling Facility | |expansion request (June 2006) | | |

|Support | |Facility permit expansion approved by CIWMB (September | | |

| | |2006) | | |

| |Considers current processing arrangements for City’s |Monthly regional meetings with County and City of Goleta |County to share recycling revenues with cities |December 2007 |

|Waste Stream Optimization |greenwaste and commingled recyclables to gauge potential |to discuss regional program (ongoing). |of Santa Barbara and Goleta | |

| |efficiency gains by directing materials to the processing | | | |

| |facilities that provide the best cost/benefit ratios | | | |

| |Explores feasibility of conversion technology as |MJSWTG conversion technology Subgroup identified and |Develop Request for Proposals to select project|May 2007 |

| |alternative to landfilling non-divertible fraction of |evaluated Conversion Technologies capable of handling |manager to coordinate evaluation and selection | |

| |South Coast MSW. |South Coast waste Stream (September 2003) |of CT vendor | |

|Conversion Technology (CT)| |Cities of New York and Los Angeles recently conducted RFP |Develop Memorandum of Understanding between | |

| | |process to evaluate and select CT vendors (2006) |City and County delineating project oversight | |

| | |Council approval to work with County to develop RFP for |and responsibilities | |

| | |expert project manager to evaluate CT vendors and assist |Request City Council approval of proposed |May 2007 |

| | |with selection (February 2007) |agreement with project manager and MOU with | |

| | | |County | |

| | | | | |

| | | | |June 2007 |

|Table 2. High Priority Project Timelines |

|4-10-07 |

| | | | |

| |Project | |Anticipated |

|Title |Overview |Milestones |Completion |

| |The City has franchise agreements with BFI and MarBorg to |Identify areas of solid waste collection services that require review with the haulers and|Complete |

| |collect and dispose of solid waste in the City. |potential amendments to the contracts; | |

| |Staff are responsible for the oversight of these franchise|Prioritize (low to high) and categorize all contractual issues as they relate to one or | |

| |agreements. |both haulers; |Complete |

| |Numerous provisions and requirements of the contract |Determine whether an issue can be addressed via an existing contract provision (phase one)| |

| |demand more rigorous oversight. |or if it requires contract revision (phase two); |Complete |

| | |Meet with BFI and MarBorg to discuss all contractual issues and develop 18 month work | |

|Contract Management | |plan; | |

| | |Completion of Phase One of Enhanced Contract Management; |April - May 2007 |

| | |Draft of Phase Two contract amendments completed; | |

| | |Council approval of Phase Two contract amendments; |July 2007 |

| | |BFI and MarBorg in full compliance with all elements of City solid waste collection | |

| | |contracts. |May 2008 |

| | | |June 2008 |

| | | | |

| | | |July 2008 |

| |Formalize processing of City’s commercial recyclables via |Receive from MarBorg Industries a financial accounting of their Material Recovery Facility|Complete |

| |contract with MarBorg Industries. |operation on City Airport Property and a proposal to move forward with an agreement; | |

| |Determine appropriate processing fee and revenue sharing |Work with City Attorney’s Office to develop language for formal processing agreement with| |

|Commercial Recyclables |arrangement. |MarBorg; | |

|Processing | |Present agreement to Council for approval; |June 2007 |

| | |Agreement takes effect for commercial recyclables processing with MarBorg. | |

| | | |August 2007 |

| | | |October 2007 |

| | | | |

| |Project | |Anticipated |

|Title |Overview |Milestones |Completion |

| |Improve the information presented on monthly utility bills|Clean-Up Bill Code Master Files; |Complete |

| |to customers to: |Determine All Possible Levels of Service; |Complete |

| |Encourage and promote recycling; |Create Bill Codes (New) to Correspond to All Possible Levels of Service; |Complete |

| |Obtain a better understanding of customers’ recycling |Make Necessary Programming Changes to Reflect New Information on Bills; | |

|Utility Billing Enhancements |habits and effectiveness of recycling programs; and |Verify Current and Determine Desired Levels of Service of Customers; |November 2007 |

| |More effectively monitor haulers’ compliance with the |Adjust Customer Account Files to Reflect Desired Level of Service; | |

| |franchise agreement | |Complete |

| | | | |

| | | |Nov 2006 – March 2007 |

| | |Meet with all departments (and outside service providers) that provide services billed by |Complete |

| |Replace current Financial Management System (Utility |current FMS utility billings to discuss replacement effort; | |

| |Billing System) with a new system. |Develop list of system requirements; | |

|Utility Billing System |New software should increase flexibility, provide greater |Develop and issue RFP for new Utility Billing System; |Complete |

|Replacement |tools for reporting and analysis, and the City and |Receive and rank proposals; |Complete |

| |vendors’ customer service. |Select New Utility Billing System; |Complete |

| | |Train and troubleshoot with new system; |April 2007 |

| | |New Utility Billing System up and running; |May - Sept 2007 |

| | | |December 2007 |

| | | | |

| |Project | |Anticipated |

|Title |Overview |Milestones |Completion |

| |Overhaul the City’s solid waste collection rates to |Memo to CAO describing Solid Waste Rate Review process; |Complete |

| |maximize financial incentives to recycle and promote |Draft scope of work – develop into RFP; | |

| |waste reduction efforts in the residential and |Share memo/scope with CAO & Council SW Committee; |Complete |

| |commercial sectors. |Meetings with BFI and MarBorg to share scope of work, solicit comments; |April 2007 |

| | |Send out RFP (allow 20 days for response); | |

| | |Develop proposal ranking process; |May 2007 |

| | |Select consultant / Award contract (City Council approval); | |

| | |Data gathering / analysis (consultant); |June 2007 |

| | |Meetings with haulers (consultant); |June 2007 |

|Solid Waste Rate Review | |Public meetings (consultant); |July 2007 |

| | |Draft Report (consultant); | |

| | |Council workshop (consultant); |August 2007 |

| | |Final Report (consultant); |September 2007 |

| | |Hauler negotiations; |October 2007 |

| | |Public meetings; |Nov - Dec 2007 |

| | |Council considers contract amendment(s) and new solid waste rates; |Jan 2008 |

| | | |Feb 2008 |

| | | |March 2008 |

| | | |March - April 2008 |

| | | |June 2008 |

| |Rectify discrepancies between BFI cart / can customers’|Conduct credit program – provide postage-paid postcards to all residential customers in|Complete |

| |service levels and bills. |Zone 1 informing of the availability of a potential rebate/credit for greenwaste | |

|Greenwaste Credit Program & | |containers that are included in basic service | |

|Related Billing Issues in | |Conduct field route audit of all BFI cart/can customers | |

|Zone I | |Modify customer bills according to findings in field and customers’ desired service | |

| | |levels. |Complete |

| | |Issue final letters to all customers indicating service levels – third and final |Complete |

| | |opportunity to rectify billing and service level discrepancies in service levels | |

| | |Conduct reconciliation effort making direct contact with customers. |Complete |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | |Complete |

|Table 3 |

|Waste Generation Rate |

|(Calendar Year 2004) |

|Diversion Activity |Total Tons | | |

| | |Percent of | |

| | |Total |Comments |

| | | | |

|Residential Recycling Activities | | | |

|Curbside Recycling |12,546 |4.5% |Franchise collection |

|Buyback Centers |2,232 |0.8% | |

|Drop-off Centers |552 |0.2% | |

|Curbside Green Waste |7,932 |2.8% |Franchise collection |

|Subtotal, Residential Diversion |23,262 |8.3% | |

| | | | |

|Non-Residential* Diversion Activities | | | |

|Source Reduction |2,884 |1.0% | |

|Waste Audits-Reuse / Source Reduction |4,455 |1.6% | |

|Commercial On-Site Pick-Up |4,373 |1.6% |Franchise collection |

|Rendering |750 |0.3% | |

|Waste Audits-Composting |967 |0.3% | |

|Commercial On-Site Green Waste Pickup |688 |0.2% |Franchise collection |

|Commercial Self-Haul Green Waste |8,482 |3.0% | |

|Manure Composting | 1,828 |0.7% | |

|Subtotal Non-Residential Diversion |24,427 |8.7% | |

| | | | |

|Other Diversion Activities | | | |

|Alternative Daily Cover |1,783 |0.6% |Cover at Tajiguas Landfill |

|Biosolids |2,009 |0.7% |El Estero WWTP |

|Construction and Demolition |120,546 |43.1% |MarBorg, Lash, SB Sand & Topsoil |

|Subtotal Other Diversion |124,338 |44.4% | |

| | | | |

|Total Diversion |172,027 |61.5% | |

| | | | |

|Total Disposal Tons |107,720 |38.5% | |

| | | | |

|Total Generation Tons |279,747 |100% | |

| | | | |

|Biomass Transformation |2,876 |1.0% |Wood chips converted to energy |

| | | | |

|Diversion Rate | |63% | |

|*Non-residential includes schools, hospitals, businesses and apartment complexes. |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download